Commentary
Best poverty-fighting tool isn't a government program; it's marriage
by Tom PrichardThe recent budget battle over Minnesota state government's $5 billion budget deficit brought to the fore deep disagreements over government funding and policy regarding helping the poor.
Signs calling on legislators not to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and to "tax the rich" were plentiful at the State Capitol. But with state and federal government facing ongoing financial problems, the debate over welfare policy is just beginning.
I think there are a few things worthy of consideration in the debate.
First, as our state government shutdown was ending, an interesting report was issued by the Heritage Foundation analyzing Census Bureau data on how the average poor person, as defined by the federal government, actually lives. I think the results would surprise most people.
I suspect when many people think of the "poor" they think of homelessness, hunger and other significant hardships. The Heritage study found that the average "poor" person has air conditioning, cable TV and a family car. Poor people are likely to have two color televisions, a DVD player and video games like Xbox. They also have a microwave, refrigerator, an oven, a stove, clothes dryer and washer, ceiling fans and cordless phones.
This picture confirms the observation made several years ago by noted political scientist James Q. Wilson, who said, "The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago."
Certainly, some people truly are homeless and hungry, and face severe hardships; they deserve our concern and support. Yet charges that any cuts or changes in welfare spending will devastate the poor are highly questionable when the very definition of "poor" is flawed.
Second, it's important to realize the best poverty program isn't a government program, but a marriage. A family with children headed by a married couple dramatically reduces the incidence of poverty. A study of Minnesota data by the Heritage Foundation found that 33.2 percent of single-parent, female-headed families with children were living in poverty, compared with only 3.8 percent of married-couple families with children.
Does this mean the government should now mandate marriage for welfare recipients? No, but recipients should be told the benefits of marriage and not be penalized for being married.
Currently, under many welfare programs, people are eligible for help when single, but once they are married their combined incomes make them ineligible. The consequence is couples living together, unmarried. This is demonstrably less stable and healthy than a marriage relationship, and it usually ends up with the children being raised by one parent.
And finally, we need to re-engage the private sector in addressing the problem of poverty, because the greatest poverty ultimately isn't material. As Mother Teresa once said, "We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty."
Government needs to encourage more private initiatives, because as former Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said, "Government can write checks, but it can't love people." That's where private, faith-based initiatives can play an important role.
The time is ripe to take a new look at our social welfare system. We've spent $16 trillion on poverty-fighting programs over the past 45 years, with poverty rates basically unchanged. We can't afford to do the same thing over the next 50 years, nor should we.
Gaining a better understanding of who the poor really are and how we can strengthen the institution of marriage and private-sector involvement need to be key components of our future efforts to combat poverty.
----
Tom Prichard is president of the Minnesota Family Council, where he's worked since 1990. He has a law degree from the University of Iowa and a master's degree in public policy from the University of Michigan.
Comments (22)
I'll definitely agree a marital contract does have stabilizing effects. What about those in poverty who love someone of the same sex? This same group will fight every inch on that one.
I find it a little ironic that the MN Family Council is extolling yet another benefit of marriage, while continuing to deny that the benefits should be extended to same-sex couples. Lunacy.
The hypocrisy is striking.
Its hugely amazing that they could say this in the same state that they are trying to deny people of marriage. The shame and immorality of the MFC is unbelievable.
My comment can be summed up in one word.
Hubris.
What the heck MPR? Earlier this week NPR was being a mouthpiece for the "cure the gay out of him" whackos, and now NPR is running articles by Tom Pritchard? I thought you had standards...
As an MPR member, I want to know why you are giving space on your website to someone from a certified hate group. I am appalled that MPR gives this man a platform in which to spread his lies and hate.
Shame, shame, shame on MPR! Would you give equal time to the KKK ?
Don't expect me to continue renewing my membership if this type of "balance" is what now passes for journalism.
In addition to my other comment, I'd like to say that Pritchard's premise is just plain wrong. Along with citing statistics from a highly questionable source (Heritage Foundation) Pritchard assumes that it is the heterosexual coupling that makes poverty disappear.
More likely, it is the fact that adult earning power is doubled when two adults OF ANY GENDER are living in the same household.
Pritchard would rather waste the state's time and money in attempts to deny people the opportunity to live together under the equal protection of the law and to offer children the opportunity to escape poverty.
His duplicity is obvious and his motives are immoral.
MPR should be ashamed that it is giving a wide voice to this evil person.
Gosh, Mr. Prichard! That's a rather compelling argument for marriage equality. You seem like such a nice man. Please consider the possibility that committed relationships are a stabilizing force for gay people, too.
Prichard quotes Tim Pawlenty saying, "Government can write checks, but it can't love people." If the love is coming from Prichard and Pawlenty, I'll take a government check any day. That kind of love I don't need.
You say that Prichard has worked at the MFC since 1990. You mean he's been using hatred of LGBT people as a meal ticket since 1990. Talk about real poverty!
As a long-time MPR supporter and avid listener, I would like to know if you researched this fringe group before agreeing to put this piece on your website. While the information in this specific article isn't particularly offensive, it speaks to Mr. Prichard's larger agenda, which includes marriage for some and scorn for everybody else. I am personally offended to see this man's picture and words on your website. Maybe next you can publish commentaries by Bradlee Dean and Marcus Bachmann on the topic of tolerance.
I agree. Tom Prichard seems to me making a strong case for expanding the role of marriage in Minnesota through marriage equality for gay couples.
But, Tom Prichard is wrong. Poverty rates have risen since a "War on Poverty," was declared by an American President. Income Inequity has risen. The rich have more. And there are more poor. There is something fundamentally broken with this system, but it's not our system of Social Safety Nets. It's our system of balancing Income Inequity, through Progressive Income Taxation and Inheritance Taxes on huge estates. Those have been gutted over the last ten years.
Marriage is one Social Safety Net that more people deserve.
The people who believe that marriage (or lack thereof) is this nation's problem really need to take a good, long look at what is really going on in the U.S.A. How about all of the megacorporations that have destroyed countless jobs by selling lower quality goods that are produced in other countries, and all of the tax breaks and bailouts they are getting from the government?
The people who believe that marriage (or lack thereof) is this nation's problem really need to take a good, long look at what is really going on in the U.S.A. How about all of the megacorporations that have destroyed countless jobs by selling lower quality goods that are produced in other countries, and all of the tax breaks and bailouts they are getting from the government?
Wow, so having at TV and air conditioning (never mind if you can afford to run it) means you're middle class? You may own these things (and the TV might be 25 years old and the A/C is nearly essential when overnight lows in the TC this summer have been over 80 degrees - try sleeping and getting up for work after a night like that!)
I just don't get how allegedly faith-based groups like Prichard's can stray so far from the work of Jesus. He stood with the poor and said the rich had a pretty poor shot at heaven. But here he is, making the sercular, right-wing argument of the Heritage Foundation, a group that has clear ties to the rich and really does nothing - zero - to help the poor.
It's shameful in it's baldface pandering to resenting the poor for daring to have a few of the trinkets afforded to 95% of Americans.
To characterize this attack on people who are suffering racism, discrimination, and the dismantling of essential services to those who have much less, as coming from people claiming to be "for" families is absurd.
I get that MPR wants to offer many voices. I'm oddly glad that Prichard accepted and said what he said. It shows how lacking he is in relating to or standing with the people he purports to help.
I am dismayed that MPR is giving column space (commentary or not) to Tom Prichard and allowing him to present his dangerous, biased propaganda as facts (the Heritage Foundation is a biased right wing organization). The Minnesota Family Council loves marriage, but doesn't think that gay people should get married and doesn't care how many children are harmed because of this (many children are being raised by gay couples). Any "evidence" that Prichard cites either comes from right wing organizations or has been twisted to suit his purposes.
I am a sustaining member of MPR, but I have been very dismayed at how MPR has given an unchallenged platform to Prichard and others in the interest of "balance". This isn't balance, it's prejudice and discrimination. These people don't have any true facts to stand on, so they distort and outright make stuff up. Rather than seriously and thoughtfully questioning people like Prichard, MPR has instead issued a free pass.
I don't mind that MPR gives space to all viewpoints - denying Prichard space to speak is just as hurtful to an open, free community as denying marriage rights to everyone.
I think a more important point is that Prichard is making an argument that people in poverty have "stuff", therefore they are not in poverty. This "stuff" has relatively little monetary value These items that prove people are not poor all have relatively low-cost items for a high return. An Xbox may cost $300, but its cheaper than paying a babysitter every afternoon. Also, try living in most American cities without a car. Good luck.
Prichard and Heritage do not account for what median household income is (most people make less than 50k/year) and what average household debt is (average is over 70k.) People can't afford this "stuff"; they are using unsustainable borrowing practices to get it. Having this stuff actually means people are poorer than they would be without it. And it's hard to blame them - who cares if you wreck your credit if you can't afford major purchases anyway?
Poverty in America doesn't compare to poverty in 3rd world countries because we have democracy and a free market system...that doesn't minimize the hardships Americans in poverty experience or lessen their struggles!
All MPR donors should know that the majority of the MPR board are Republicans who donate to Republicans. Randall Hogan and Ian Friendly donated to Norm Coleman. Many of the board members donated to John McCain. Your MPR is not liberal or progressive, but are corporatist who agree with these classist misogynists.
BTW ADFC, Section 8, Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility is based not on marriage status, but based on how many people live in a household.
I have 5 words for you: correlation does not equal causation.
Marriage does not "cure" poverty. People who are not poor have a higher chance of making a marriage work, since they don't have the same level of financial problems that lead to relationship instability and they don't have parties to the relationship working 2 full time jobs or working a swing shift while the other works the day shift. Those conditions cause marriages to fail and they also keep marriages from happening in the first place. If someone is working 2 full time jobs, when do they have time to date?
Please, take a logic class. If not for the sake of the people who your offer vague platitudes to like "marriage will make you not be poor anymore," for your own sake so you can stop embarrassing yourself with fallacious arguments like these.
Income gets people out of poverty. If we can't handle people getting an income from the government then I agree that the private sector should pay the hard working citizens of this state an income that allows the person to provide for the needs of himself and his family (i.e. transportation, food, housing, preventative medical care, emergency medical care, heat & air, education and clothing). At least, that is what Jesus recommended we do for the poor in the book of Matthew, especially if the poor are working!!! Which brings me to my main point, which is that if we want to cut the rate of poverty in half - pay women equally (Seccombe 2009). The households headed by single women are more likely to be in poverty, not because she is unmarried, but because she is not paid well or equally for the same work ethic, training, skill, etc because of bigotry.
Bravo MPR. Although I cannot stand this organization nor this individual I appreciate that you adhear to your duty to give time to all different opinions. Eliminating this idiot's voice would be just as irresponsible as his efforts to eliminate the voices of same sex couples.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
